Literature DB >> 2815408

Bubble cycling as the explanation of the promotion of ultrasonic cavitation in a rotating tube exposure system.

D L Miller1, A R Williams.   

Abstract

The cavitation-promotion effect of rotating a sample tube during ultrasound exposure is not yet fully understood. Cavitation-induced hemolysis was observed in 0.5% hematocrit suspensions of erythrocytes exposed for 5 min at 37 degrees C. For 1.61 MHz unfocused exposure an apparent threshold of 4 W/cm2 spatial-peak intensity was obtained for hemolysis in a 72 rpm rotating exposure chamber which was made of dialysis tubing. If the tube was not rotated, then no hemolysis was observed up to 16 W/cm2. Creation of standing waves in the sample by using a thick-walled culture tube, or by placing a styrofoam reflector behind the dialysis tube did not change the apparent threshold. Focused 1.45 MHz exposure gave the same apparent threshold in a rotating dialysis tube, but this increased to about 128 W/cm2 for the nonrotating case. When the focused ultrasound was turned on for half a rotation and off for half, results were similar to those for a nonrotating CW case, while on-off cycles synchronized to a quarter rotation gave results similar to the rotating CW case. A plausible explanation of the rotation effect, given these results, is that rotation brings bubbles on the rear wall, where the beam exits the tube, back around to the front again, where the bubbles may then re-nucleate the suspension, and thereby promote cavitation bioeffects in the rotating tube.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2815408     DOI: 10.1016/0301-5629(89)90172-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol        ISSN: 0301-5629            Impact factor:   2.998


  9 in total

Review 1.  Section 8--clinical relevance. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 2.  Section 6--mechanical bioeffects in the presence of gas-carrier ultrasound contrast agents. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 3.  Section 7--discussion of the mechanical index and other exposure parameters. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 4.  Section 4--bioeffects in tissues with gas bodies. American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 2.153

5.  Sonoporation by single-shot pulsed ultrasound with microbubbles adjacent to cells.

Authors:  Nobuki Kudo; Kengo Okada; Katsuyuki Yamamoto
Journal:  Biophys J       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 4.033

6.  Contributions of mechanical and sonochemical effects to cell membrane damage induced by single-shot pulsed ultrasound with adjacent microbubbles.

Authors:  Kengo Okada; Nobuki Kudo; Takashi Kondo; Katsuyuki Yamamoto
Journal:  J Med Ultrason (2001)       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 1.314

7.  The influence of octyl β-D-glucopyranoside on cell lysis induced by ultrasonic cavitation.

Authors:  Douglas L Miller; Chunyan Dou
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Distinct sensitivity of normal and malignant cells to ultrasound in vitro.

Authors:  F Lejbkowicz; S Salzberg
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Double-Strand Breaks in Genome-Sized DNA Caused by Ultrasound.

Authors:  Rinko Kubota; Yusuke Yamashita; Takahiro Kenmotsu; Yuko Yoshikawa; Kenji Yoshida; Yoshiaki Watanabe; Tadayuki Imanaka; Kenichi Yoshikawa
Journal:  Chemphyschem       Date:  2017-03-14       Impact factor: 3.102

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.